---

Column 1031

Nellist, Dave

O'Brien, William

O'Hara, Edward

O'Neill, Martin

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Patchett, Terry

Pendry, Tom

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prescott, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Quin, Ms Joyce

Radice, Giles

Redmond, Martin

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Reid, Dr John

Richardson, Jo

Rogers, Allan

Rooker, Jeff

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Rowlands, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

Sedgemore, Brian

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Snape, Peter

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Steinberg, Gerry

Strang, Gavin

Straw, Jack

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Turner, Dennis

Vaz, Keith

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Wallace, James

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Worthington, Tony

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Allen McKay and

Mr. Jack Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.-- [Mr. Newton.]

---

Column 1032

Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received a request from the Government Front Bench for a statement to be made about the current position in the Gulf? You may be aware that developments in the past few hours suggest--I use the word advisedly--that the ingredients for a ceasefire may now be available. This is clearly a matter of the greatest interest to the House, and the whole House would expect the Government to make a statement at the earliest opportunity about a development of such significance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : I am not aware of any requests for a statement, but I am sure that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said will have been heard by those on the Front Bench.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to know whether the Bill is valid. I do not wish to question the Chair, but you will recall the same question being asked in relation to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Despite its lengthy consideration in Committee and the fact that no amendment was allowed to be made to it, when that Bill went to the other place it was found to be defective, and to contain an erroneous date. Can we have an assurance that this Bill is valid, has been vetted and is perfectly in order and that, if that is not the case, it will be slung out?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is in order. I hope that we can now get on with the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard what you said, but may I refer you to what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said when he introduced the Bill on 14 January? He said :

"Those works will serve generating stations being built under powers already granted by the Secretary of State for Energy."--[ Official Report, 14 January 1991 ; Vol. 183, c. 667.]

It is widely reported that the Government are on a three-line Whip to support the Bill. How can it be described as a private Member's Bill when it is intended to give two power stations enabling powers that, according to the hon. Member for Stroud, have already been granted by the Secretary of State? Surely this is a Government Bill and, if there is a three-line Whip on it tonight, as there was on another Bill last week, it cannot qualify under the private procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman means, of course, a private Bill, not a private Member's Bill. His point would be entirely in order if made during the Second Reading debate.

7.18 pm

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Despite what has just been said, the detail of the Bill was substantially discussed at the time of the revival

---

Column 1033

motion on 14 January. If the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) had quoted me a little more extensively, he would have come up with the answer to his question.

The Bill is extremely mundane, dull and technical, so it is entirely appropriate that the dullest grey Member, in the dullest grey suit should put across the message. Indeed, he is ideal. In the debate on the revival motion I said that National Power plc and PowerGen plc are already building the power stations that are the subject of tonight's debate. No matter what fuel is used, water will be required for cooling purposes.

Mr. Hood : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the building of the power stations gone ahead without approval for the measures in this Bill? Is that not a contempt of this House? If one of our constituents was to build an extension to his house without the proper approvals, I am sure civil servants would tell him to take it down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman can make his points in the debate. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for me to remind the House that the Bill does not deal with the building of generating stations. It deals with auxiliary works and, as a consequence, it is comparatively narrow.

Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have given a ruling which to some extent may circumscribe our debate. In the context of the proposition that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is about to advance, we shall consider the generation of power by gas. That has implications for this country and for the European Community. I hope that I have not misinterpreted you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that you will not circumscribe the debate. After all, we are discussing the implementation of our power generation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Bill does not deal with power stations. It deals with auxiliary works. I do not want to restrict unduly the scope of the debate on a private Bill. Let us see how we get on.

Mr. Knapman : My hon. Friends and I had high hopes that Opposition Members would have read the Bill since we debated the revival motion.

Mr. Redmond : Before the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) was interrupted by those points of order, did he say that this simple and mundane Bill related to constructing lagoons? Does it deal with extracting water into lagoons?

Mr. Knapman : I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's last sentence.

Mr. Redmond : I assume that the hon. Gentleman will read from a prepared speech. Perhaps he could go back a few sentences because I was distracted earlier and missed his opening comments. I think that he mentioned the word "lagoons".

Mr. Knapman : I may well have been ad libbing. That might surprise hon. Members. I described the Bill as mundane and technical. Opposition Members may disagree because they think that it deals with the building of power stations. It does not.

---

Column 1034

The Bill is required for the construction of the necessary cooling water works and, in that case, only to overcome certain prohibitions in the Humberside Conservancy Act 1905, which no doubt Opposition Members have read with care. The Bill does not seek to circumvent any planning permission procedures. The power station developments already have consent and deemed planning permission after full local consultation.

We look forward to hearing from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).

Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth) : We look forward to his words of wisdom.

Mr. Knapman : Indeed, and we appreciated his wisdom during the debate on the revival motion.

The objections to the Bill are rather sad.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : Would my hon. Friend care to rephrase that? There are no objections to the Bill because there were no petitions against it. There are no objections from my constituents in the area where the power station is to be built and there is no objection from the Labour-controlled Humberside county council.

Mr. Knapman : My hon. Friend has made a very good point and the way in which he has looked after the interests of his constituents contrasts starkly--

Mr. Redmond : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There was one petition against the Bill, but it was withdrawn. Is the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) suggesting that hon. Members cannot raise objections to private Bills?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is not a point of order. I suspect that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will catch my eye later and it would be in order to make that point then.

Mr. Knapman : We fully understand, particularly at this time of political consensus, why Opposition Members have to say what they say, but we believe that it is a little sad that hon. Members have to act as delegates rather than representatives. We understand the reasons for the objections, but the Bill has nothing to do with coal. It deals simply with inlet and outlet pipes on the River Humber.

Mr. Hood : There was one objection. Who objected and why was the objection withdrawn?

Mr. Knapman : I understand that the Coalfield Communities Campaign objected on the general principle of how the proposal would affect coalfield communities, but it withdrew the objection. It realised, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, that the Bill has nothing to do with coal.

By using the blocking motion as a field on which to fight this mother of all legislative battles, the Opposition are on thin ground. Whenever an issue involves competition, privatisation or capitalism, the Opposition erect a mental Maginot line. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) recently said that the Labour party must learn to run capitalism better than the Conservatives. That news does not seem to have percolated through to the Opposition Members who are present tonight.

---

Column 1035

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) : What my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) advocated will not be too difficult in view of the state of the economy under this Government.

Mr. Knapman : The Leader of the Opposition will not have an opportunity to put his ideas into practice. If, however, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) wants to make a start in that direction, he should support the Bill.

The hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) objected to the Bill in the House. That did not do them credit, because they have caused much delay and a great deal of expense. What is the point of that?

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is, like me, an official of the all-party conservation committee. The main reason for my view of the matter is that it is scandalously unwise to use our relatively limited reserves of gas for steam raising when, in only a few years or generations, we will bitterly regret that waste of a prime resource.

---